Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:50:32 AM PST

Multiple candidates aiming to get into top two in March balloting

by Brian Leubitz

While the value of newspaper endorsements has surely waned, in a municipal election where many of the candidates are finding difficulties distinguishing themselves from each other, the LA Times endorsement could grab a few votes. And this round, City Councilman Eric Garcetti gets that nod:

As council president, [Garcetti] worked behind the scenes to awaken his colleagues to the depth of the city's financial crisis and to take action they did not want to take, imposing layoffs and requiring those remaining in the workforce to shoulder more of the burden of their medical and pension benefits. At times when Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa should have been on hand to close difficult negotiations, the task was left to Garcetti, and he came through. ...

Voters at first embraced Villaraigosa because they saw in him the power to inspire. Garcetti has that too, but in a different, quieter fashion, and he backs it up with experience in City Hall, a share of troublesome mistakes and 12 years of achievement. If he avoids a tendency to be glib when he should motivate, and if he avoids the tendency to allow his finesse to give way to a desire to be all things to all people, he could be just what Los Angeles needs. At this time, out of this field, he's the best choice for mayor.(LA Times)

Polls have been all over the place in the race, but for now, it looks like Garcetti and City Controller Wendy Greuel are in the best positions to grab one of the two spots in the May general election. But Councilwoman Jan Perry, Republican talk show host Kevin James, and perhaps a few others, are within striking distance depending on what the turnout and field programs look like over the last few weeks.

bear some responsibility for the city's current fiscal problems, which were dramatically worsened when the council negotiated employee contracts that were unaffordable, leading to a budget too far out of balance, and leading, in turn, to deep cuts in services.

snip snip

r the most part, he has performed well. As council president, he worked behind the scenes to awaken his colleagues to the depth of the city's financial crisis and to take action they did not want to take, imposing layoffs and requiring those remaining in the workforce to shoulder more of the burden of their medical and pension benefits.
-----

Or in other words, the city is being bankrupt by big benefits to government employees and union goons, and we should vote for this guy because he is going to cut those benefits, not establish confiscatory taxes.

The City of Los Angeles actually does have a major problem with this. The difficulty is, it all starts with the DWP union (IBEW). Because they have a ton of clout, they negotiate raises and salaries that are ultimately unaffordable for the city, and for utility ratepayers, who always end up having to foot the bill as well. At this point, your average DWP worker makes 40% more than a comparable city worker for the same work. When other City unions see that, they want a comparable deal, and the end result is a total lack of affordability.

It's a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. And it all stems in no small part from the fact that the IBEW sets the agenda. Eric Garcetti spearheaded the creation of the Office of the Ratepayer Advocate to ensure that DWP ratepayers were being treated fairly. DWP/IBEW strongly opposed this, for obvious reasons. Wendy Greuel, who has a long history of working hand-in-hand with the IBEW, wanted the Ratepayer Advocate to be within her office, where it would obviously have no teeth. Garcetti won that fight. And now, the DWP's SuperPAC is spending over $1 MILLION to try to get Greuel elected.

Even adamant pro-labor progressives here understand that the IBEW's political methodology gives the labor movement here a bad name.

The city of LA ,according to both you and me, is in financial trouble because public employees have salaries and benefits that are unaffordable.
The LA Times, a left-leaning, if not liberal newspaper says these benefits must be cut. So says Garcetti, another Democrat.

And that's ok. This situation is likely prevalent also in other cities in California, and other states.
But when Republican governors try to do the same thing, that is to to crack down on public employee compensation, they are evil 1'ers backed by the Koch Bros?

You just don;t like unions
I'm not a union member
I was one for a short while, as a kid
But, I support the right to organize and the right to strike
except for government employees who should be allowed binding arbitration

The Employee Free Choice Act[1] was a legislative bill that was introduced into both chambers of the U.S. Congress on March 10, 2009.[2] The bill's purpose was to[3]

" amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations [unions], to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. "

The bill would have, first, allowed a union to be certified as the official union to bargain with an employer if union officials collect signatures of a majority of workers. The bill would have removed the present right of the employer to demand an additional, separate ballot when more than half of employees have already given their signature supporting the union.[4] Second, the bill would have required employers and unions to enter binding arbitration to produce a collective agreement at latest 120 days after a union is recognized. Third, the bill would have increased penalties on employers who discriminate against workers for union involvement.

The city of LA ,according to both you and me, is in financial trouble because public employees have salaries and benefits that are unaffordable.

The LA Times, a left-leaning, if not liberal newspaper says these benefits must be cut. So says Garcetti, another Democrat.

And that's ok. This situation is likely prevalent also in other cities in California, and other statements.
But when Republican governors try to do the same thing to crack down on public employee compensation, they are evil 1'ers backed by the Koch Bros?

You can do the first without destroying the unions. It's not easy, but it is possible.

Most of the criticism of those Republican governors (Walker, Scott) is because their goal is the destruction of the public employee unions, not because they're trying to get their fiscal house in order.